Thomas Pikketty's Capital — Page 2

Come on, Namo. When have you EVER rejected an invisible hand?

---

Wow...interesting thread turned into this!

That was the most uncool thing on this site in a very long while...and that's saying a lot!

What an ahole! Of course, that was exposed with the rant that boiled down to mishearing a television commercial.

---

Not only is it deeply uncool, it's also kinda deeply hilarious. Mostly because it brought to mind my most very favorite Austin Pendleton's line from my most very favorite Austin Pendleton performance in 1972's WHAT'S UP, DOC?:

'Hugh, you're a bad loser, you're a plagiarist and you're nasty. I don't like you and I want you to go away.'

Namo, maybe you should start another thread on Capital since I don't think this one is going to be very productive.

I was enjoying the discussion and looking forward to more.

Plus I think that it's an important issue for discussion. There are excellent arguments worth exploring from both ends of the spectrum.

---

Taz, I think we can get this back.

Did you say you were finding the book readable?

---

Yes, so far. It's obviously not a beach read, but I don't think it requires any depth of economics to get what he's saying.

Of course if someone has a deeper knowledge of econ than it may resonate a bit more.

He focuses more on macro than micro (a good thing for those readers who hate econ) and anyone who's ever read an editorial by Paul Krugman will immediately click in to what Pikketty is driving at.

---

For instance, does he really recommend that income be taxed at two-thirds or three-quarters? Or is that just a misleading reduction by his detractors?

---

Growl, Austin Pendleton and I had a very long chat a couple of years ago about HELLO AGAIN. He said people talk to him all the time about it.

He makes a case for higher taxes on the wealthy but that 2/3 or 3/4 is not at all what he's saying.

I should clarify that I don't agree with all his views. He is very left leaning and I have generally found myself in tune with more moderate economic theories.

But his research is vast and his points are excellent for starting dialogues.

The main thing I have found when debating any and all economic theories is that they are like reading tea leaves.

No one knows how things will play out because they are all based on the assumption that people will act like rational players.

That's often not the case.

---

Thomas PIkketty does? His accent is how you say tres adorable!

---

My big wish is this thread doesn't get deleted.

It's revealing in ways somebody hadn't intended.

---

"I hope Elizabeth Warren gives back those millions of dollars she received in campaign funding from the super wealthy and wall street bankers, then..."

So, as I understand your point Liza's, if a politician has been supported by plutocrats (and just about anyone in a position of power has been supported by plutocrats, for the simple reason that we do live in a country where it is almost impossible to get elected without the help of big money), then that politician has two choices:

a) fight for the plutocrats no matter whether their interests coincide with the nation's or not, in which case the politician is a puppet, or

b) refuse to fight for the plutocrats when their interests conflict with the nation's, in which case the politician is - according to your quip, Liza's - a hypocrite.

What's wrong with defining these two types of politicians this way? What's wrong with it is that a) if we only want puppets, then nothing could ever possibly change and we will continue to live in a country where no one inside government challenges plutocracy; and b) if we demand that our politicians be neither puppets nor Liza's-styled hypocrites then there would be no one left to govern.

Updated On: 5/4/14 at 03:17 PM